Parents forced out of home, High Court orders son to return gifted flat
The Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of a property gift made by elderly parents to their son, saying that when parents transfer property
The Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of a property gift made by elderly parents to their son, saying that when parents transfer property on the understanding that they will be cared for, the transfer can be cancelled if that promise is not honoured. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad dismissed a petition filed by Mumbai businessman Ashwin Ramesh Soni, who had challenged an order directing him to return a Lower Parel flat to his parents. Read Full Story The dispute was brought by Ashwin's parents, Ramesh Bachaulal Soni, 68, and Beena Ramesh Soni, 60. They had transferred ownership of the flat to their son in May 2023 after he assured them that he would look after them and support them in their later years.
According to court records, the family began facing serious disagreements around 2020. In an attempt to restore peace within the family, the parents transferred two properties to their son. They also paid the stamp duty and registration charges for the transfers. However, relations later deteriorated. The court noted that the parents eventually had to leave the Lower Parel flat, which had been their home. Another apartment in Byculla, which was still under construction, had also been transferred to the son and the parents were unable to take possession of it, leaving them without access to either property. The son argued that his father was financially secure, ran a jewellery business and owned other properties.
He also claimed the Lower Parel flat had originally been bought using his own money and said cancelling the transfer would affect his wife and two children, who were living in the flat. The parents maintained that both properties were acquired using their own resources and were transferred only because they believed their son would care for them and maintain family harmony. The High Court noted that the gift deed itself included a clause stating that the son had agreed to take care of his parents after receiving the property. The judges found that this commitment formed the basis of the transfer and that the arrangement had clearly broken down, as the parents had been forced to leave their residence.
The court also said that a parent's financial condition does not determine whether such a transfer can be cancelled. What matters is whether the property was transferred on the expectation of care and whether that expectation was fulfilled. Rejecting the son's objections, the court found no reason to interfere with the earlier order and directed him to hand over possession of the Lower Parel flat to his parents. Ends
The BriefWire